What Is The Racial Contract According To Charles Mills

What Is The Racial Contract According to Charles Mills And Its Implications

The assignment asks us to answer the following: (A) What is the Racial Contract, according to Charles Mills? (B) Explain the differences between the Social Contract and Racial Contract along the following dimensions: (i) the status and transformation of members of society, (ii) the purpose of the contract, (iii) the role of morality in shaping the terms of the contract, and (iv) the contract as a discrete event versus continuous process. (C) How does the Racial Contract explain the genesis and persistence of an unjust racial order? (D) Explain how the Social Contract justifies political power, whereas the Racial Contract rationalizes it. Be sure to use examples to discuss the distinction between justification and rationalization.

Paper For Above instruction

Charles W. Mills introduces the concept of the Racial Contract as a fundamental framework intertwined with the historical and ongoing maintenance of racial hierarchies within society. Unlike the classical Social Contract, which purportedly establishes a basis for legitimate political authority and social organization based on mutual agreement among free and equal individuals, Mills contends that the Racial Contract operates as an implicit and often explicit set of agreements that systematically privilege white sovereignty and subordinate non-white populations. This racialized contract delineates the status, rights, and roles of different racial groups, effectively shaping societal structures and perpetuating inequality.

According to Mills, the Racial Contract characterizes the social order as fundamentally racial. It posits that white people are granted a superior status, with rights and privileges that are systematically denied or limited for non-white groups. This contract fosters a racial hierarchy wherein whiteness is associated with moral virtue, political authority, and social dominance, while non-whiteness signifies inferiority, marginalization, and subjugation. As a result, the racial contract not only codifies racial inequalities but also sustains them through institutions, policies, and cultural beliefs that reinforce white supremacy.

Differences Between the Social Contract and Racial Contract

(i) The Status and Transformation of Members of Society

The Social Contract envisions a model where individuals, regardless of their initial social or racial status, are transformed into sovereign citizens through mutual agreement, emphasizing equality and rationality (Rawls, 1971). In contrast, the Racial Contract assigns fixed racial statuses that do not necessarily change through contractual agreement. White individuals are granted universal rights and freedoms, whereas non-white individuals are often cast as subhuman or perpetual outsiders, with their status rigidly defined by racial hierarchies (Mills, 1997). This reflects a static view of racial positions, which are rarely subjected to transformation or renegotiation.

(ii) The Purpose of the Contract

The Social Contract is ostensibly designed to establish justice, mutual cooperation, and protection of individual rights, aiming at the creation of a just society (Rawls, 1971). Conversely, the Racial Contract primarily serves to justify and maintain racial inequalities and domination. It legitimizes the privileges of white supremacy and rationalizes the subjugation of non-white populations—serving the interests of the racial elite rather than fostering genuine justice or equality (Mills, 1997).

(iii) The Role of Morality in Shaping the Terms of the Contract

Morality in the Social Contract is based on principles of fairness, reciprocity, and mutual respect among free individuals (Rawls, 1971). It presumes that moral commitments underlie the agreement to abide by just rules. In contrast, the Racial Contract often relies on racially constructed moral beliefs that sanctify white supremacy and justify the subordination of others. These racialized moral narratives distort notions of justice and human sameness, facilitating a moral justifications for racial inequalities (Mills, 1997).

(iv) The Contract as a Discrete Event versus Continuous Process

The Social Contract is traditionally conceptualized as a discrete event—an original agreement at the founding of a society—after which social and political arrangements are maintainable and stable (Rawls, 1971). Conversely, Mills views the Racial Contract as a continuous, ever-present process that perpetuates racial hierarchies through ongoing practices, policies, and cultural representations. It functions not as a one-time event but as a persistent framework that continually shapes societal realities, often operating beneath the surface of formal agreements.

Explanation of the Genesis and Persistence of an Unjust Racial Order

The Racial Contract explains the genesis of racial injustice as rooted in the deliberate construction of racial hierarchies established during periods such as European colonization, slavery, and imperialism. These historical processes formalized racial distinctions and embedded them into legal, political, and cultural institutions. The persistence of these inequalities is maintained through systemic practices—such as segregation, discriminatory laws, economic disparities, and cultural stereotypes—that reinforce the racial hierarchy (Mills, 1997). The racial contract ensures that the benefits accruing to white groups are preserved, often through exclusionary practices that marginalize non-white populations, perpetuating systemic injustice over generations.

Justification versus Rationalization of Political Power

The Social Contract serves to justify political power by appealing to principles of fairness, rational consent, and mutual benefit. It claims that authority derives from the voluntary agreement of rational individuals, providing a moral foundation for legitimacy (Rawls, 1971). In contrast, the Racial Contract rationalizes political power by citing racial superiority and necessity, often invoking myths of racial difference to consolidate authority. Unlike justification, which seeks moral legitimacy, rationalization uses distorted ideologies and racial hierarchies to legitimize existing power structures. For example, the racialized narratives employed during colonialism and slavery often rationalized exploitation and violence, positioning such practices as morally justified within a racial order (Mills, 1997).

Conclusion

In conclusion, Charles Mills’ concept of the Racial Contract provides a compelling lens to understand the structural underpinnings of racial inequality. It reveals how race has been systematically embedded in the social fabric through agreements that privilege white supremacy and reinforce racial hierarchies. Differentiating the Racial Contract from the classical Social Contract highlights the racialized origins of social order and underscores the need to critically examine and dismantle these embedded agreements to achieve genuine justice and equality.

References

• Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, 1971.
• Mills, Charles W. The Racial Contract. Cornell University Press, 1997.
• Crenshaw, Kimberlé. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review, vol. 43, no. 6, 1991, pp. 1241–1299.
• Coates, Ta-Nehisi. “The Case for Reparations.” The Atlantic, June 2014.
• Ladson-Billings, Gloria. “Just What is Critical Race Theory and What’s it Doing in a Nice Field Like Education?” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 11, no. 1, 1998, pp. 7–24.
• Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality. Rowman & Littlefield, 2010.
• Pateman, Carole. “The Sexual Contract.” Stanford University Press, 1988.
• Bell, Derrick. Faces at the Bottom of the Well: The Permanence of Racism. Basic Books, 1992.
• Young, Iris Marion. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton University Press, 1990.
• Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction. NYU Press, 2017.